BASHIR AHMAD vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Sub-Inspector of Police against the departmental reduction in rank for disobedience and avoidance of superior orders, which was upheld by the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved the condonation of a 23-day delay in filing the appeal and the propriety of interfering with a concurrent finding of fact regarding disciplinary action within a disciplined force. The Court held that the petition was barred by time with no sufficient cause shown for condonation, and further held on merits that findings of fact concerning disobedience of orders in a disciplined force do not warrant interference. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, establishing that unexplained delays in service appeals will not be condoned and factual determinations in departmental disciplinary matters of disciplined forces are final.
- Whether an unexplained delay of 23 days in filing an appeal before the Supreme Court can be condoned without sufficient cause?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding disciplinary action against a member of a disciplined force?
- Does the punishment of reduction in rank for disobedience of superior orders in a disciplined force call for review by the apex court?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, earlier a Sub-Inspector of Police was proceeded against departmentally for disobedience/avoidance of the compliance of the order of the superior and was reduced in rank. He appealed to the Tribunal and failed, and now seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
2. The appeal is shown to be barred by 23 days. No explanation is forthcoming to explain this delay.
There is, therefore, no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
3. On merits the learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and we find that a finding of fact has been recorded. It is a case of disobedience of orders of superiors in a disciplined force and the punishment imposed does not call for review in these proceedings.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.